Would you give Steven Purcell a job?

[Rolfe]

High-flying executive (37) seeks gainful employment. Previous post as Chief Executive, administering a £2 billion pound budget, salary £60,000 per annum.

Here's the overviews of the story.

Purcell: the end of the line
The fall of Steven Purcell

Failed politicians, disgraced politicians, bent politicians - they all seem to manage to land a cushy, well-paid job somewhere in the private sector. Personally, I wouldn't give this character a job sweeping the lab floor. Would you employ him? In what capacity? Do you think he's going to fall on his feet regardless, after last week?

Rolfe.

ETA: wrong forum - I've asked the mods to move it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Moved to Politics by request.

Posted By: arthwollipot

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks, Arth, that was quick!

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

No takers? The short version is that this high-flying politician, who caused headlines a few years ago when he left his wife and came out as gay, has been exposed as (allegedly) a serious cocaine-user, having an alcohol dependency, making abusive phone calls, and becoming so clinically paranoid (presumably as a result of the cocaine) that there were discussions about sectioning him under the Mental Health Act.

He had been expected to go places in politics. He was talked of as a future First Minister for Scotland, or as a senior member of a future Labour government in Westminster. He appeared to have it made. £60,000 a year is a nice income for a 37-year-old, and he was expected to go much higher.

However, it became clear he had to go. Then....

Despite reports last week that his advisers and family members tried to talk Mr Purcell out of resigning, no-one actually did [that]. Instead the discussion was about whether he should quit immediately or wait until the annual general meeting of the city Labour group in May. If it was the latter, the plan was to clear his diary for eight weeks, and use the time to let him ­recuperate and line up a job outside politics.

Much of the rest of the article covers the attempts to keep the lid on this whole thing, slide Purcell out the back door as suffering from "stress and overwork", and let him line up a new job. Presumably something commensurate with his previous position.

Is this fair? That some employer should take on someone of apparently high calibre, with the drug abuse, alcoholism and disastrous personal and medical history being concealed? However, it didn't work. It was all over the papers yesterday, in glorious technicolour detail.

So what sort of a job is he likely to get, now?

Rolfe.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Lots of people have drug problems, but what I find surprising is how rarely you hear of politicians with these issues. If he'd come out and said he had a problem, then perhaps he could have taken the time to sort things out, but from reading the reports it seems his mental state is none too stable; I don't think any other employment is a good idea until he's completely recovered.

On a lighter note, I hear Pat Lally is looking for work.

 

[Darat]

No takers? T

...snip...

So what sort of a job is he likely to get, now?

Rolfe.

As an employer I would want to know what he had done in the past (career wise) and if there were still any issues with his drug problems, cant see really what the "Politics" angle is to this story?

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I thought it was politics because of him being a politician. I had intended to start the thread in Politics. However, if you think it's better in Social Affairs, by all means move it back.

I wonder how many employers would be willing to give a high-paid, very responsible job to someone with that history, given the number of other good candidates around. Is it easy to live this sort of thing down? I'd have imagined it would be the kiss of death, but it's possible this may not be the general view.

Rolfe.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

It's over seven years since I lived in the dear green place, so I missed all this, still it's nice to see Glasgow politics is as lively as ever.

The plan to try and cover the whole episode up and parachute him into a nice safe job does seem a bit rich. However I don't think substance abuse problems and/or mental illness should be the kiss of death to any future career, Charles Kennedy seems to have straightened up reasonably well.

How was his work on Glasgow council perceived? Good, bad or indifferent?

 

[Roadtoad]

It's not the drug use that would freak me out. It's the blatant dishonesty in the whole business. If you've got a problem, admit it and get help. Marion Berry should have done the same thing. He'd have earned people's respect, rather than becoming the butt of jokes.

I realize that politicians don't think about this sort of thing, but perhaps if they did, they might realize they'd gain greater respect for being human beings instead of trying to be demigods.

Same story of here. Just without the panache and Scots' brogue. Or the taste in clothing for that matter.

 

[geni]

Failed politicians, disgraced politicians, bent politicians - they all seem to manage to land a cushy, well-paid job somewhere in the private sector. Personally, I wouldn't give this character a job sweeping the lab floor. Would you employ him? In what capacity?

In the capacity of someone who knows which boxes you need to tick in order to sell things to Glasgow City Council. Other duties including being someone with a bunch of contacts with Glasgow City Council and related bodies.

 

[geni]

Is this fair? That some employer should take on someone of apparently high calibre, with the drug abuse, alcoholism and disastrous personal and medical history being concealed?

If he could clean himself up in 8 weeks there is a limit to how serious the problems could have been. It appears he could not.

 

[geni]

It's not the drug use that would freak me out. It's the blatant dishonesty in the whole business. If you've got a problem, admit it and get help.

At which point you will lose your job and risk running into a selection of legal issues. There is no insentive not to hide such issues.

 

[Roadtoad]

At which point you will lose your job and risk running into a selection of legal issues. There is no insentive not to hide such issues.

Not necessarily, at least not here in the States. Perhaps things are truly that different between us, but in some instances, when a politician is honest about what's going on, he's managed to reap some substantial rewards in both the political arena, as well as the personal.

There might not be many immediate incentives, but they do exist. Right now, I don't think I'd hire him. Ever.

 

[Rolfe]

It's not the drug use that would freak me out. It's the blatant dishonesty in the whole business. If you've got a problem, admit it and get help. Marion Berry should have done the same thing. He'd have earned people's respect, rather than becoming the butt of jokes.

I realize that politicians don't think about this sort of thing, but perhaps if they did, they might realize they'd gain greater respect for being human beings instead of trying to be demigods.

Same story of here. Just without the panache and Scots' brogue. Or the taste in clothing for that matter.

Actually, it seems they do think about it. That's the thrust of a fair chunk of the main article.

Their “full disclosure” strategy was based on the idea that Mr Purcell could have a future as a politician if he was seen to be honest about his problems. Mr Ryan – who had been Mr Purcell’s right-hand man when he toppled Charlie Gordon to become council leader in 2005 – had the grim task of asking his old friend to stand down.

But by 4pm, after several calls with Mr Ryan, Mr Purcell was still refusing to go. He did, however, agree to a public statement *explaining his sudden “leave of absence”. One draft – which would later gain much *publicity – said Mr Purcell was being treated for a *“chemical dependency”. Another draft referred to “drink and drugs”.

Finally Mr Purcell agreed to a public *reference to “drink and previous use of drugs”, with the statement going out in Mr Coleman’s name. He also agreed to quit.

However, Purcell had engaged the top lawyers and PR people to get him through this, and they effectively torpedoed it by refusing to allow the full disclosure. He himself was blowing hot and cold all over the place, and the article implies (but does not state) that his paranoia and irrationality were due to ongoing cocaine consumption.

Then it was complicated even more by the sudden death of the 18-year-old McKinley on Friday. I can't tell if the article is hinting that he was Purcell's boyfriend or not. That certainly doesn't seem to have helped Purcell's state of mind.

Purcell had a good reputation, in fact. That's part of the scary stuff. Because it seems he was questioned by the drug squad as long ago as last May, and warned he was laying himself open to blackmail by dealing with known drug dealers. Colleagues have been trying to get him clean for a while, to no good effect, and yet all was sweetness and light on the surface.

There are now allegations that this was known as long ago as the Glasgo East by-election, nearly two years ago, but kept under wraps.

Adviser to someone who wants an inside track to Glasgow City Council? Maybe. But association with Purcell is unlikely to do a company much good, because the sheer embarrassment of all this has rendered him persona non grata with the local Labour Party, who run the show and probably always will.

Rolfe.

 

[Roadtoad]

I got that from the article, too. I guess that's what's so irritating about the whole spectacle. It was unnecessary. Now, his future is shot.

 

[Rolfe]

The idea that lot could be kept under wraps seems a bit naive. Especially with Paul Hucheon around.

That guy's the hero of a lot of SNP activists, but having heard him interviewed on TV at the time of a by-election (very entertaining, by the way), it was obvious he despises all politicians equally. If there's a juicy story about an SNP politician, he'll be after that just the same. I hope some people have got that message.

I suppose I'm seeing this a bit coloured by what has happened to my godson. He was in the final stages of a teaching diploma, doing well and very keen to teach, when he did something extremely stupid. He had borrowed his father's spare car for a couple of weeks while on a teaching placement, drank too much one evening and crashed the car into a bus shelter. He got a conviction for drunk driving, a 12-month ban, and community service (helping out in a charity shop).

He has never secured a teaching job, and I wonder if he ever will, with that criminal record. Sometimes it only takes one mistake. Purcell was old enough and savvy enough to have known what the probable consequences were, but he carried on regardless. Would I ever trust him in any job? Possibly not.

Would someone employ him for his inside contacts? Maybe. Depends on whether the Labour party really does consign him to the outer darkness.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I confess I had never heard of him until last week.
My baseline cynical supposition is that "politician" is a synonym for "crook".
In this case, corruption seems less the case than stupidity.
My prime interest would be what laws did he break if any? Drug stuff, presumably?
Also, as he is clearly a monumental liar, could he be trusted ?

No. I wouldn't employ him.

I worked until three weeks ago with a mechanic (American). One evening, an unannounced breathalyser spot check was carried out at the worksite.
He refused to take the test and was immediately and unconditionally fired.

Opinions will vary on how fair or unfair that might be, but it's the conditions I work under. I signed the paper accepting it. No drink or drugs at, or en route to the workplace.

I don't know if public representatives are required to sign similar undertakings.
But I think they should be.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I wonder how many employers would be willing to give a high-paid, very responsible job to someone with that history, given the number of other good candidates around. Is it easy to live this sort of thing down? I'd have imagined it would be the kiss of death, but it's possible this may not be the general view.

Rolfe.

I would need to look at his career-history and achievements then make a judgement call on whether that outweighed the apparent additional risk due to his past medical issues. Depending on the role being an ex-politician may be a considerable plus - for example if you were in an industry that had a lot of contact with local authorities having someone who knows the ropes is a big plus, even more so if they have good contacts.

 

[Rolfe]

I confess I had never heard of him until last week.
My baseline cynical supposition is that "politician" is a synonym for "crook".
In this case, corruption seems less the case than stupidity.
My prime interest would be what laws did he break if any? Drug stuff, presumably?
Also, as he is clearly a monumental liar, could he be trusted ?

No. I wouldn't employ him.

Oh, I don't think he was corrupt, I think he was stupid. I'm fairly gobsmacked that someone with these problems and flaws was promoted to such a responsible position, and indeed lionised as the Great White Hope.

I just have this cynical idea that he'll come up smelling of roses in a cushy well-paid job somewhere, and I wonder why he would be worth employing in such a job given that background.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I don't know if public representatives are required to sign similar undertakings.
But I think they should be.

From what I personally know and what I've read that would mean most of our current politicians and certainly pretty much all the past ones would be gone... not saying that's a bad thing, we'd never would have had that woman.